Standing Committee F

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Clause 50 - Law Commission

Amendment moved: [this day]: No. 198, in page 28, line 35, after 'Court', insert— 
'either in Northern Ireland, England and Wales or Scotland.'.—[Lady Hermon.]

Lady Hermon: I am delighted to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Pike. The Minister wants to intervene, but I shall recap for your benefit and say that we are talking about the establishment of the Law Commission in Northern Ireland. The purpose of the amendment is to widen the pool of High Court judges.

Des Browne: Before we adjourned this morning, I sought to intervene on the hon. Lady but ran out of time. I am not now in the presence of some of those who were in the Room then, especially the Front-Bench spokesman for the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), so I am conscious that I may have to repeat myself later. I wanted to intervene to point out that the flexibility in the Bill allows for part-time or full-time appointments. We intend to follow the review's recommendations and make a part-time appointment.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister's intervention, although I am not sure that I agree with it. Lest anyone have the impression that we in Northern Ireland live in something of a legal quagmire, I should explain that the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland has operated since 1989. Its remit has been to scrutinise the civil law of Northern Ireland, with some exceptions, and to submit reform proposals to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is composed of part-time members.
 I find it extraordinary that the possibility of a commission in Northern Ireland with five full-time members is still being contemplated. I explained this morning that, in the much larger jurisdiction of England and Wales, there are only five full-time members. In the Republic of Ireland, there are also five full-time members. Will the Minister explain why the Bill cannot state that the intention is for part-time members? How can he justify the possibility of five full-time members in such a small jurisdiction?

Seamus Mallon: I have two points in relation to amendment No. 198. I tend to agree that the provision should be widened.
 I find it difficult to understand the remarkable omission from the amendment of Ireland itself. As the years go on, I have no doubt that harmonisation of 
 law on the island of Ireland, whatever shape or form it takes, will increase substantially and will be relevant and beneficial to its people as a whole. I ask that that be taken on board, as it is crucially important. In many instances, harmonisation of law has started to proceed. We should bear that in mind when considering what may happen on the subject. 
 My second point is one of clarification of clause 51(4)(c). What is the official term for the Republic of Ireland? I assume that legislation always uses official terms.

Lady Hermon: In a later amendment, I shall try to widen the scope of consultation to incorporate other law reform bodies, including the Law Reform Commission of the Republic of Ireland. The amendment is confined to High Court judges in Scotland or in England and Wales because, as presently proposed, one member of the five-member commission will be a lay member, so only four members will have legal expertise. The Republic of Ireland has a written constitution and its legislation is quite different. It therefore seemed better to have a High Court judge from Scotland or from England and Wales.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon. Lady. It is not inconceivable that the commission will be chaired by a High Court judge from Ireland, especially in light of the fact that a past Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was from Dublin. I am not making a political point, but in the interests of developing harmonisation, which will help everybody, we should keep doors open rather than close them.

Des Browne: With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to debate the issue that he raised in connection with clause 51(4)(c). If you, Mr. Pike, call the amendments relevant to that provision, we shall have the opportunity to deal with some of those issues.
 The hon. Lady draws our attention to what she suspects would be an unnecessary reduction of a scarce resource—that of High Court judges in Northern Ireland—by forcing one of them to become a full-time member of the Law Commission. That is not the import of the clause, nor is it the Government's intention. The hon. Lady does not seek to restrict it to a part-time appointment, but seeks to open it to judges from England and Wales, or Scotland. She would widen the pool of judges from whom the commission chairman could be drawn in order to ensure that the provision did not have the unintended effect that she suspects. 
 I thank the hon. Lady for her short description of the differences between the bodies of law applicable to Northern Ireland and to England and Wales, while recognising the significant similarities between them. That difference is important, but the system in Scotland, if not entirely different, is significantly different from that in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Des Browne: Before we had to suspend, I was talking about the different nature of Northern Ireland law. It is common, if not universal, for bodies such as the Northern Ireland Law Commission to be chaired or presided over by a judge of the jurisdiction, who has skills and experience relevant to the application of the body of law that operates in that jurisdiction. It is presumably for that reason that the review—following the model that I think operates in England and Wales, and which certainly operates in Scotland—recommended that the commission be chaired by a High Court judge of Northern Ireland. It is certain that the skills and experience necessary to cope with the different nature of Northern Ireland law will reside in such a person. Although such skills and experiences might reside in a person from the other jurisdictions mentioned in the amendment, it is by no means certain that they would.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) rose—

Des Browne: I shall conclude this part of my argument before I take an intervention from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). The Government's position is in line with the review recommendation that it would be appropriate for the commission to be chaired by a High Court judge of Northern Ireland.

Edward Garnier: I apologise if the Minister, or other members of the Committee, have covered the following point already. Is the chairman of the commission a full-time appointment or a position that the High Court judge will hold at the same time as sitting as a judge on the bench? I ask only because the jurisdiction is small, although the legal issues may be interesting and complex. In London, the chairman of the Law Commission is a High Court judge on a full-time appointment. I cannot remember whether the appointment is for three, four or five years, but he ceases to sit as a judge.

Des Browne: That is a fine example of the incisive ability of senior counsel. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been present this morning, he would know that that was the nub of the argument that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) advanced to the Committee. However, no doubt it bears restatement.
 The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question lies in schedule 9, which relates to the Law Commission. Paragraph 2(1) states: 
A person who holds judicial office may be appointed as a Commissioner without relinquishing that office.
 That provision will allow a High Court judge who chairs the commission to be on a part-time appointment, whose terms will reflect paragraph 2(2). 
 The hon. Lady asked, reasonably, why it was not specifically stated in the clause that the appointment 
 would be part time. As it stands, the statutory framework allows flexibility. If it were specifically stated that the appointment was part time, that flexibility would not be allowed. I am aware that the Law Commission is intended to serve the people of Northern Ireland not only in the immediate future but for a long time to come. That flexibility may one day be welcomed by the people of Northern Ireland—indeed, it may be welcomed by the hon. Lady—if there is a particular issue that needs attention. 
 The review anticipated that the immediate needs of the people of Northern Ireland in respect of the Law Commission required a part-time appointment, but there is no point laying down a statutory framework that requires a definition of part time when we can do otherwise and allow flexibility. 
 I give the hon. Lady a clear undertaking that all her points have been recognised and that it is intended to make the appointment part time. I am sure that she is in favour of flexibility, so that the Law Commission can respond to any future needs, and that she will allow the Bill to remain drafted as it is.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister's lengthy and comprehensive explanation. My confusion arose from the fact that I managed to squeeze in time to examine the Law Commissions Act 1965. The Bill reflects the 1965 legislation establishing the Law Commission for England and Wales, which is deemed to comprise five persons who are intended to be full-time appointments. However, I appreciate the Minister's undertaking that it is anticipated that the commission will be part time, because I was worried about the fact that there are only seven High Court judges to service the entire jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. I appreciate the fact that he has taken that on board, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 199, in page 29, line 4, leave out from 'who' to end of line 6 and insert—
'may hold judicial office or may be a solicitor or barrister or teacher of law at a university.'.
 The composition of the Law Commission, as anticipated by the Bill, will be—as we now understand—a part-time High Court judge and four other commissioners. Those other commissioners are listed in subsection (4). One will be a barrister, one a solicitor, one a legal academic and the other one will be someone who 
does not hold (and has never held) judicial office and is not (and has never been) a barrister, solicitor or teacher of law in a university.
 The fifth member of the commission is expected to be a lay person. 
 My concern arises from the duties of the commission, which are listed in clause 51(1). It is an onerous responsibility. 
The Commission must keep under review the law of Northern Ireland with a view to its systematic development and reform, including in particular by—
(a) codification,
(b) the elimination of anomalies,
(c) the repeal of legislation which is no longer of practical utility, and
(d) the reduction of the number of separate legislative provisions.
 That is a heavy burden. 
 Again, I draw the Committee's attention to the comparison with other Law Commissions. The commission in the Republic of Ireland has five commissioners, and paragraph 14.29 of the criminal justice review makes the point that all of them are lawyers. Likewise in England and Wales, the Law Commission is made up entirely of lawyers. It is clear from paragraph 14.21 of the review why it is useful for all the members of those commissions to be experienced lawyers. In examining the working methods of commissions, it says: 
The Commission's work is based on thorough research and analysis of case law, legislation, academic and other writing, law reports and other relevant sources of information both in the United Kingdom and overseas. It takes full account both of the European Convention on Human Rights and of other European law.
 That places on the fifth member—the lay member—the huge burden of having to consider the codification and elimination of anomalies, and having to have the ability to analyse the jurisprudence of the European convention on human rights, which is a huge and fast-developing area of law. The European convention has been incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998, which applies in Northern Ireland. It is a heavy responsibility and, in fairness, we should know what contribution we can rightly expect from that lay member, without placing too onerous a burden on him or her.

Crispin Blunt: I support the hon. Lady's amendment and implore the Committee to execute an act of mercy in accepting it. If it does not, it will place the poor statutory layman—

Lady Hermon: Or woman.

Crispin Blunt: Or woman. Legislation usually states these things in the male gender, on the understanding that both genders are properly represented. The layperson—to assuage the hon. Lady's sensitivity—will be placed in the company of lawyers who are dealing with an area of legal expertise. That might be a condign punishment if he is a volunteer rather than a pressed man, but it peculiar to insist on the qualification in the Bill.
 I am happy to accept that the fifth person need not hold judicial office, but the arguments that we heard earlier as regards the Judicial Appointments Commission apply even more strongly in this instance. The role of commissioner requires a level of expertise that the layperson will have to acquire if the qualification remains as it is in the Bill. That is a heavy burden to place on anyone, although people will no doubt want to take on that role. I cannot imagine that a serving barrister or solicitor with a successful practice will want to be the fifth person on the Law Commission, given that the professions will already have nominated their own candidates, but a properly qualified person who meets the requirement of not being in a judicial appointment and who wants to take on the role of commissioner should be able to do so. 
 The Committee should have mercy and allow the fifth person on the commission—if, by chance, they have a qualification—to make a proper contribution and to be respected by the other members. The amendment would not rule out the possibility of there being a lay member without qualifications, as laid out in the Bill. It would, however, give the fifth member of the commission a fighting chance of making a proper contribution, rather than simply being seen as the statutory lay member, which would be a pity. I know that a lay member is recommended in the review, which the Minister will no doubt quote, but qualifications are clearly called for, and the Bill should not rule them out when they have been acquired.

Seamus Mallon: I find the points that have been made most interesting and, at times, rather disturbing. I do not believe in the mystique that is commonly held to surround the law, because I do not believe that the law belongs to lawyers. It is formulated by lay people like us, and then given to the lawyers to implement. Nor do I share the notion that someone with no expertise in a certain area has nothing to contribute. If that were the case, few Members of either House would be competent to make the law or to sit on Standing Committees, which do just that every day of the week.
 That is relevant because there is, and always must be, a place for lay opinion, no matter how exalted the company in which it may be expressed. I recognise that many of the points that have been made are, on the face of it, valid. I know that they are not meant to imply any intellectual or professional arrogance, but I believe that there is a role for a layperson. Many lay people could contribute the common sense and impartiality that might not always be present if the commission were comprised exclusively of people involved in the law. I shall add a rider to the term ''impartiality'' lest it be misunderstood. Lawyers tend to talk to each other, probably more than any other profession, and I know that because my daughter, nephews and nieces are lawyers and they talk to each other almost to the exclusion of any lay person who happens to be sitting in the same room. However, it is noticeable that when it comes to making a decision, they usually revert to the lay person for the commonsensical advice that is often needed. I believe that, in a place like Northern Ireland, where the law has been out of the touch with the community for so long, it is doubly essential that a layperson should be a member of the Law Commission and every other commission. 
 The capacity to bring a sense of community and a layperson's perception to the process far outweighs the technical expertise that it will also be necessary for members of the commission to show. The hon. Member for North Down asked what contribution we could expect from a layperson, and I know that she did not mean to be disparaging. I believe that lay people can make various contributions. Apart from the ability to reach the heart of an issue as quickly as a person with the relevant expertise but without the jargon, the layperson will not be—I do not want to be pejorative, so I am searching for the right term—part of the legal network in Northern Ireland. The legal network in Northern Ireland is very powerful and 
 privileged and not always open to those outside it. The clause provides an opportunity to break through that and will permit views to be expressed other than those coloured by legal perceptions, although decisions will still have to be made on a legal basis. 
 The Government will be seen to be right in providing for the inclusion of a layperson on the commission, and I hope that, as the years go by in Northern Ireland, lay people will become involved more often. The more that happens, the stronger the law will be and the more deeply rooted in the community that it serves.

Des Browne: The hon. Member for Reigate was right to point out that the review's recommendations for the composition of the commission, as set out in paragraph 14.55, are directly reflected in clause 50. Its recommendations are not surprising, given the discussion and the information it gleaned from throughout the world. It was fulfilling its remit in the Belfast agreement, which included a requirement to consider measures to improve the responsiveness, accountability and lay participation in the criminal justice system. Lay participation was part of its remit and it responded to that, as it responded to other recommendations in the review.
 The hon. Lady was right to point out that some Law Commissions are made up entirely of lawyers, whether judges, barristers, solicitors or academics, but that is not universal. There is a clear example in Canada where one commissioner is described as a director of corporate development for Island Telecom Inc. That does not fit the description that the hon. Lady wants to include in the Bill. 
 Many of the changes in the law that the hon. Lady and I have welcomed during the past 20 years, especially in relation to children and victims, have been driven not by lawyers or law commissions, but by demands made by Parliament in response to lay people's appreciation and understanding of, and sometimes dissatisfaction with, the shape and application of the law. 
 Under clause 51, the Law Commission is required to deal with other matters, including simplification and modernisation of the law. Simplification can sometimes be achieved by involving people who are not steeped in the traditions of the law and its vocabulary, but who can provide a different view. 
 The commission will examine practice and not just complex black letter law. It will have a staff whose qualifications and research abilities will help to inform the commissioners. I do not want to leave the Committee with the feeling that the five commissioners will have the burden of all the commission's work. They will be supported with appropriate resources and staff. 
 The hon. Lady said rightly that care must be taken when appointing the fifth member of the commission to ensure that they have the skills not only to hold their own with the legally qualified members, but to 
 bring a welcome and complementary perspective to the commission's work. The Government believe that the opportunity to involve a skilled layperson is an improvement on the position in other parts of the United Kingdom, and I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will welcome that in years to come.

Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and the Minister for their helpful contributions. Nothing that I said was intended as a criticism of lay members and their valuable contribution in many walks of life in Northern Ireland.
 Clause 50(4)(d) excludes people who have held judicial office or been barristers, solicitors or teachers of law in a university, and the purpose of the amendment is to prevent the exclusion of such people. I do not like the idea of excluding people who may have a contribution to make, but I have taken the Minister's explanation on board, as well as the points made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, although I shall not give in so easily on the next one. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 242 in page 29, line 13, after 'representative', insert—
', including in terms of gender and ethnicity,'.
 The amendment concerns clause 50 (6), which states: 
In appointing persons to be Commissioners, the Secretary of State must so far as possible secure that the Commissioners (taken together) are representative of the community in Northern Ireland.
 If members of the Committee reflect on last week's discussions, they may remember that that phrase occurred when we examined the appointment of lay members by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. When the phrase arose it was not amended, which concerns me. I want it added to the Bill that the term ''representative'' means 
in terms of gender and ethnicity.
 When I last mentioned the phrase ''representative of the community'', I specifically drew the Committee's attention to the Evelyn White case. The Lord Chief Justice, who is the most senior judge in Northern Ireland, made that decision, which concerned the meaning of the phrase ''representative of the community''. That phrase appeared in the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, which governs the Parades Commission. Currently there is not a single woman on the Parades Commission, although I am prepared to stand corrected. That is despite the fact—the judge referred to this in his judgment—that the background report, which is a little like the criminal justice review on which the Bill is based, was founded on the North report, which states: 
The Parades Commission would need to have a geographical spread and both cross-community and gender balance. We were struck, on several occasions during our meetings, with the different approaches of men and women to the parading issue. We think that is important that women should have an effective voice on the Parades Commission.
 When the phrase ''representative of the community'' in the 1998 legislation was interpreted in the Evelyn White case, the judge took the phrase in 
 its context as against the regular usage of the word ''community''. He ruled: 
The phrase in question does not refer to gender or to the make-up of the population of the Province. It refers specifically to 'the community', which in the context of parades is constantly used to denote sectarian blocks.

Des Browne: I intervene on the hon. Lady at this point, because I am aware of the care that she takes in interpreting such phrases. For the benefit of the Committee, she should read that last sentence again. The important words are ''the context'', because the context of this Bill is entirely different.

Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister. I shall quote again:
The phrase in question does not refer to gender or to the make-up of the population of the Province. It refers specifically to ''the community'', which in the context of parades is constantly used to denote the different sectarian blocks.
 It continues: 
In the context of the 1998 Act, therefore, it is in my view a tenable proposition—
 a submission from one of the lawyers is then referred to— 
that paragraph 2(3) imposes a requirement only to ensure sectarian balance in the composition of the Commission.
 The judge rightly considered the context of the 1998 legislation. The words ''gender'' and ''geographical background'' do not appear in that Act, so the term ''community'' could be interpreted as meaning the sectarian divide. That is particularly relevant when we have marches. 
 I certainly do not criticise the judge for considering the context in which the phrase ''representative of the community'' was used in the 1998 Act. I suggest that when any judge is interpreting this Bill, he or she should do likewise and take its context into account. When we earlier considered how the phrase related to lay members of the Judicial Appointments Commission, we did not set a context that related to ethnic minority or to gender. To ensure that ''representative'' includes women and ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland, I would like the context to be included in the Bill. That would be in keeping with the judgment, and would not be a criticism of Lord Justice Carswell, or his interpretation of the legislation.

Edward Garnier: That was a decision by Lord Justice Carswell, so I wonder whether the hon. Lady could answer some questions about it. Was he sitting as a judge of first instance or in the Court of Appeal? Was the construction of the expression ''community'' the sole issue to be decided by the judge? Is not the decision special to the facts, and that construing the expression in the Bill would not necessarily be of any use? Given the judgment, what must have followed since, and the fact that criticism has already been made of the expression in another circumstance, is it necessary to add those words to the Bill?

Peter Pike: Order. This is a little too long for an intervention. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech.

Edward Garnier: I do not think that the Committee would like me to make a speech. I will come to the last sub-clause of my point.
 Would not the appointers of persons to be commissioners bear in mind the hon. Lady's points and those of the Lord Justice when interpreting their duty to ensure that appointments are representative of the Northern Ireland community?

Lady Hermon: I almost regret that I gave way.

Peter Pike: I am regretting that I gave the hon. Lady the chance to give way.

Lady Hermon: I forgive you, Mr. Pike. The hon. Gentleman brings numerous points to my attention. First, I am willing to give him my copy of the judgment to read. In the interim, I can tell him that it was a decision in the High Court of Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench division. The interpretation of the phrase ''representative of the community'' in paragraph (2)(3) of schedule 1 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 is important. The context was different in that legislation, but it was included. We must take the opportunity to set the context in the Bill, by including the important phrase ''representative of the community''.

Seamus Mallon: I welcome the amendment. I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady is adamant that she will press it to a vote; I shall vote with her.
 The amendment highlights the question of representation that has been there since the beginning and will remain until it is dealt with. The amendment would require the layperson—one of the four members—to be representative of the community's ethnicity and gender composition. The layperson might wonder why that does not apply to the appointment of a barrister, solicitor or an academic. 
Mr. Browne rose—

Seamus Mallon: One should never ask rhetorical questions.

Des Browne: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that the requirement for the commission to be representative applies to all the commissioners.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the Minister for that observation. We have debated the issue before. Unless we pass an amendment that applies the requirements of representation of in an equal way, the equality that we seek will be left out of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister is right, and I have not found him to be wrong yet. However, one might make the following thumbnail sketch: the barrister might be a Unionist, the solicitor a nationalist—for want of a better word—the academic from an ethnic minority, and the layperson might make up the gender balance. If the Minister is correct, that is the formula. Once one tries to subdivide that, one enters a quagmire. That points out the previous and current difficulty. I voted for a similar amendment previously and will do so now. It is assumed that the provision does not refer to the appointment of those in the legal profession, but
 that it applies to laypersons. That is the weakness. I am glad that the hon. Lady has tabled the amendment, and that we have an opportunity to stress that point. Will the Minister clarify how the requirement for representation is assumed in the manner that he outlines, and how it is effective?

Lembit Öpik: This is one occasion when it is incumbent on the Government to explain why they would not accept a proposition that has been so forcefully argued by the hon. Members for North Down and for Newry and Armagh. We have spoken about the wording in earlier debates in Committee. It is simply not acceptable for the Minister to say that gender and ethnicity are de facto included, not least because, as the hon. Lady has shown, ''representative'' means something different in the context of the Good Friday agreement.
 Any person involved in debates in this House on Northern Ireland would assume that the word ''representative'' referred to matters of religion and whether a person comes from a nationalist or Unionist tradition. I have made the point before that we risk enshrining the sectarianism that we are trying to get rid of by not addressing this kind of issue with amendments such as that tabled by the hon. Lady. 
 The Alliance party of Northern Ireland famously took the courageous decision to redefine itself temporarily as a sectarian faction to enable the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), to be re-elected. That was an extremely difficult decision for the Alliance party, but we end up in such quagmires because we do not think about those who choose not to categorise themselves as Unionist or loyalist, nationalist or republican. 
 The challenge for the Minister is to explain why he thinks that, given all the precedents for the definition of ''representative'', we should feel confident that in five, 15 or 20 years we will remember this debate, and that all those responsible for implementing the Bill will bear our short discussion in mind and ensure that gender and ethnicity factors are included. 
 I should declare an interest. As hon. Members know, I have Estonian roots. I am realistic enough not to hold my breath and expect the amendment to require an Estonian always to be appointed. However, there are other, larger communities in Northern Ireland and other sections of the community who are perfectly entitled to be cynical about the prospect that the word ''representative'' will, on its own, create any ethnic or gender balance, given what has gone before.

Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to test him a little further on the matter? There will be five commissioners. I want to know, so that I can understand the thrust of the amendments, what is meant by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), or what he understands the hon. Member for North Down to mean, in the Northern Irish context, by ''ethnicity''. There is a confusion, perhaps a deliberate one, between sectarianism and ethnicity. Can the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who is a noted explainer of these matters, help me?

Lembit Öpik: Probably not. No, I can—that was a cheeky one-liner. Of course I can help the hon. and learned Gentleman. His question is fair. I assume that he has no difficulty in understanding the amendment's reference to gender balance—

Edward Garnier: Not in all circumstances.

Lembit Öpik: But in most circumstances. I shall try to help the hon. and learned Gentleman by describing how I see the amendment. It is designed to create a clear distinction between what ''representative'' has tended to mean in the past in Northern Ireland legislation, and what it should mean now and in future. In the past, ''representative'' conventionally referred to the distinction between Unionist and nationalist. It was a binary distinction. Introducing ethnicity and gender means that consideration would be given not only to that sectarian distinction. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that I used the example of the Alliance party of Northern Ireland, which does not regard itself as being rooted in either of those traditional positions.
 I shall give an example of the use of the word ''ethnicity''—if the hon. and learned Gentleman has a better one, I should be happy to hear it—to highlight the fact that we must not enshrine that old binary divide in legislation, which by definition should be about justice and equality.

Lady Hermon: I want to clarify what the hon. Gentleman means by ''ethnicity''. We have a large Chinese community in Northern Ireland of between 8,000 and 9,000 people. They make a tremendous contribution, quietly and discreetly, but it is not recognised. I would like them to be included in the commission. That is one example of who I have mind.

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has caught my eye, Mr. Pike, so I shall give way to him.

Seamus Mallon: The hon. Member for North Down said that ethnicity is never recognised. It has been for the past three years, because when the First Minister or Deputy First Minister had to make appointments, ethnicity was recognised at every opportunity. I am pleased to put that on record.

Lembit Öpik: The point has been well made. What is interesting about the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that the word ''ethnicity'' has currency and meaning in Northern Ireland. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister evidently operated on the basis that it was an important consideration.

Andrew Turner: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I thought that the explanation of ''ethnicity'' given by the hon. Member for North Down was clearer than his, but it was a reference to only one ethnic group. If I recall it correctly, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire's definition was, ''it is not bi-polar, and if you have a better word I am happy to use it.'' As we do not know what it is that he is trying to describe, that will be difficult.

Lembit Öpik: The staggering clarity of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) leaves me in silent awe. Having accepted the example of the
 Chinese community, which is substantial, I assume that my earlier example of the Estonian community did not count because there were not enough Estonians to qualify.

Crispin Blunt: On the Estonian community, it was Harold Macmillan who complained about Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet that it had more Estonian members than old Etonians.

Lembit Öpik: That was worth it because, at the risk of digressing further, The Irish Times once said that people who live in glasnost should not throw Estonians. I apologise to the Committee for having allowed that slight digression.
 What we are discussing is not a moot issue but an important point that will have practical consequences. Using the 20-year test that we have discussed before, it is clear that if, in 20 years' time if there is a dispute and the existing definition remains in place, people will say that the Good Friday agreement is about sectarianism. Right or not, that is what the Good Friday agreement implies.

Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He uses the words ''sectarianism'' and ''ethnicity''. Does he regard sectarianism in the north of Ireland as a political or a religious factor? If it is regarded as a political factor, that has an ethnic root. He uses the words ethnicity and sectarianism at the same time, but the distinction between them goes to the heart of the point that he is trying to make.

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am sometimes guilty of being a little sloppy about interchanging those words, and he is right to highlight that. He pointed out the absolute importance of the definition of the words that we use in Bills, especially those about justice. That needs no further clarification from me, were I capable of providing it.
 For once, I feel that I have gone on a little longer than I ought to have done. The hon. Members for Newry and Armagh and for North Down have clearly made the point. If the Government resist the amendment and we vote on it, the Liberal Democrats will feel entitled to support it.

Edward Garnier: I hope that the Minister will resist the amendment. It may have been moved with good intentions and a better understanding of the sociological, cultural and political difficulties that have historically affected Northern Ireland than I can bring to bear, but we must be careful of linguistic confusion. In many discussions in this and other Committees, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has provided light, as opposed to heat, but I fear that he has fallen into some error.
 On the simple grounds of numerical representation, I urge the Government to reject the amendment. The hon. Member for North Down said that there were 8,000 or so Chinese people in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that she is right. If so, they can under no circumstances represent 20 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland. Let us pursue that example. It would be impossible for the appointers of the commission to do as the amendment asks and ensure 
 that the members of the commission are representative of the ethnicity of Northern Ireland. To extend the point to its silliest, someone is either one of those 8,000 Chinese people or not. No man or woman on the commission can be representative of the percentage of the population of Northern Ireland made up of those 8,000 people.

Harry Barnes: That argument works only if there were to be five members on the commission in perpetuity. There can be combinations of different numbers of members at different stages, so it will be possible to have percentage representation for different groups that operate under it.

Edward Garnier: I accept that we are presented with the problem of the word ''representative'', which is used in subsection (6). We are all supposed to represent our constituents, but under no circumstances can I be representative of them all. We simply have to do our best.
 I do not want to labour the point. The amendment is well intentioned—I do not mean that in a belittling sense—and I am sure that it has caught the attention of those who will have to make the decision. However, I genuinely fear that it would be unworkable and make the work of the appointers almost impossible.

Gregory Campbell: I come to the subject from a community that has often been overlooked in appointments to non-departmental public bodies. My community sees itself as unrepresented on a variety of bodies, so I have considerable sympathy with the rationale that underlies the amendment. Like other hon. Members, I have considered the practicalities if the amendment were to be agreed to. Bearing in mind the size of the commission, if it were to be reasonably representative in terms of gender, one would expect there to be three females and two males, one of whom would be from an ethnic minority. If not, it would be open season for those who would argue that no reasonable attempt had been made to obtain three females and two males, one of whom happened to be from an ethnic minority in Northern Ireland. That would present major difficulties and make the task even harder. Therefore, while it is a bit bland to say that the body as a corporate entity has to be representative of the community in Northern Ireland, that is more workable than the words in the amendment.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down; the amendment has proved to be a gateway to an interesting and important discussion. I shall concentrate my remarks on the amendment and on the arguments that I deployed, perhaps unconvincingly, on 31 January, reported at column 78 of the Official Report.
 I shall resist the amendment—and therefore expect there to be a vote on it—so let me explain why. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her researches, in particular those in relation to the Lord Chief Justice's decision. I do not want to get into a discussion that might be illuminating for the lawyers present about how persuasive or binding that decision might be. I accept that it is a persuasive decision; it 
 should instruct the Government's consideration of these matters. That decision was made in the context of parades in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady is right to say that the expression ''representative of the community in Northern Ireland'' will, if the Bill becomes law, be interpreted in the context in which it operates. 
 The Government's view is that, in setting up a commission, they should keep under review the law that applies to all the people of Northern Ireland. That is not a restricted context—it is a very broad one—so my argument is that the definitions of ''representative'' and ''community'' will not be restricted to those that applied in the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice. 
 My second point is that the Government's position is clear. The concept of representativeness covers the issues that the hon. Lady seeks to include. I get the sense from the Committee, and from my experience in Northern Ireland, that the growing practice of requiring such bodies to be representative is welcomed in all parts of the community. It generates hot debates about whether, when people are appointed, they are representative, but nobody attacks the principle. 
 There must be some understanding that the ability of those appointing individuals to such bodies will be limited by the number of people to be on the body. There is a growing acceptance that not all bodies in Northern Ireland should be so extensive and unmanageable as to reflect everybody's wishes and definitions of ''representative''. There is also a restriction on who applies for the jobs and who is qualified to do the jobs, as we have discussed under other clauses. With all those caveats, I gather that there is a growing acceptance and approval of the phraseology and approach to the appointment to bodies in Northern Ireland.

Bill Tynan: Does my hon. Friend accept that we are considering not the Lord Chief Justice's decision but that of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the suitability of the people on the commission? On that basis, and bearing mind the situation in Scotland and the equality to be found in the Scottish Parliament, would he not express confidence that gender and ethnicity would be recognised by the Secretary of State?

Des Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for directing my attention back home. I was tempted, as I prepared my response in my mind, to castigate other parties represented in the Committee for their failure to follow the practice of my party in ensuring gender representation. However, I do not want to get into that.

Chris Mole: Oh, go on.

Des Browne: No, I shall resist that temptation.
 I am confident that the Government's intention has been achieved in the Bill, and that the phrase ''representative of the community'' includes ethnic origin and gender. If the phrase is tested, as it was in the case brought to our attention by the hon. Lady, it 
 will be found to include both gender and ethnic background in this context. 
 I make one more point to the hon. Lady. She does not propose gender and ethnic background as exhaustive of the meaning of ''representative.'' I have a list that I wrote as I sat here and, although I shall not bore the Committee with its details, it includes all sorts of factors that I have taken into account when I have played some part in the appointment of people to bodies against the test of ''representative of the community.'' There is a significant and growing list of factors, and people sometimes persuade me that other factors should be taken into account. My list is by no means exhaustive, but I do my best to achieve representativeness when I have a role to play in such bodies. 
 That leads me to a concern whose detail the lawyers in the Committee may understand, while others may not. [Interruption.] It depends on how well I explain it. Those who have had to argue statutory interpretation before a court recognise the danger of narrowing a focus of a definition by including selected examples in relation to a general description. People would argue that, if Parliament chose to include certain examples, it sought to exclude others. I want the phrase to be interpreted by the court in the broadest possible sense in relation to the community of Northern Ireland. If I have explained that properly and people understand it, I am gratified. The debate seemed to become far too lawyerly when the nature of the decision was discussed in detail, and I did not want to fall into that trap. 
 It is the Government's intention that the phrase should be interpreted broadly, and for those reasons we shall resist including any examples in a definition of the phrase, as strongly as the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh may persuade us to do so, because that might have the unintended consequence of narrowing the definition.

Lady Hermon: I must say that I did not feel as if I had fallen into a trap in explaining our judgment of the body of law that has built up around the phrase ''representative of the community.'' I tried to explain why I was concerned and why I tabled the amendment. I did not think that it was a trap. I remain deeply concerned that if we do not include a reference to ethnicity or gender, the clause will not be interpreted as I would wish. Therefore, with reluctance but because I feel passionately about the issue, I shall press the amendment to a Division.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 18.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clause 51 - Duties of commission

Seamus Mallon: I beg to move amendment No. 279, in page 29, line 27, after 'State', insert—
'and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 280, in page 29, line 33, after 'State', insert—
'and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly'.
 No. 281, in page 29, line 36, after 'State', insert— 
'and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly'.
 No. 282, in page 30, line 2, after 'State', insert— 
'and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly'.
 No. 283, in page 30, line 4, leave out subsection (b).

Seamus Mallon: The purpose of the amendments is to try to ensure that the programmes of work of the Law Reform Commission will be subject to, and have the approval of, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, as well as being subject to the Secretary of State.
 It is highly likely that much, if not all, of the work of the Law Reform Commission will relate to legislation in areas for which responsibility has been devolved to the Assembly. The provisions in the Bill according to which the Secretary of State alone will be responsible for approving its programme are not fully appropriate, as decisions will impinge on devolved functions. It is insufficient for the Secretary of State to consult only the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and it is important that the latter should have powers equal to those of the Secretary of State in making decisions. 
 I know that the issue has some difficult implications. I am also aware that there could be a three-tier stage before devolution. The Minister confirmed yesterday that some of the Bill's provisions would apply before devolution, so there will be a staged approach. It will be a quantum leap for the political process in the north of Ireland to take control of these issues again, but I want to try to ensure that the procedures have the input and standing that they should have. The amendments not only place responsibility on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, but involve them in decisions in a way that could help devolution—if and when it happens. 
 I make my final point in a political, rather than a disparaging spirit. The more we get away from Secretaries of State and Lord Chancellors, the more we shall be able to take on the responsibilities that come our way and which, I believe, we shall successfully carry out. That is why I tabled the amendments, and I await the Minister's reply with interest.

Des Browne: As a long-standing and committed advocate of devolution for not only Northern Ireland,
 but Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks on transferring functions to politicians who are accountable to the people they serve, and I agree with him. I also understand that the reasoning behind the amendment reflects the review.
 The Bill makes the Secretary of State responsible for approving the Law Commission's programme prior to the devolution of criminal justice functions, although my hon. Friend is correct to say that the commission will also have a remit in the devolved field. 
 The review team was clearly aware of the separate areas of responsibility for civil and criminal law, and recognised that structural complexities will precede the devolution of responsibility for criminal law. The review made it clear that the Secretary of State should be given responsibility for appointments to the commission, and we are following through that recommendation. 
 The review also recommended, however, that the commission's work programme should be agreed with the Secretary of State, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. During preparations for the Bill, it was concluded that complicated and extensive drafting would be required to separate out and precisely delineate in the Bill the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We do not, therefore, want to take the amendments as they stand. 
 Given where the balance will lie in terms of the commission's work programme, we should place responsibility for the programme with the Secretary of State, as we did for appointments. In practice, however, we envisage that the Secretary of State will determine the programme in the reserved field and that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will do the same in the devolved field. That will require close consultation between the Ministers, and I am happy to give an assurance that such co-operation will take place. Indeed, I am prepared to go further and to draft a clear concordat between the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Secretary of State, although it will obviously be for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to decide whether they want to express matters in that way. None the less, I give that clear assurance, in so far as I can, on the part of Secretary of State. 
 I also assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State will work closely with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Executive on the establishment of the Law Commission. If the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Executive are unhappy about the commission having a role in the civil field before devolution, that would weigh heavily on our decision about when to commence the provisions. I should also clarify that, post-devolution, the issue will be subject to a transfer order, as we discussed. Which Minister takes the place of the Secretary of State in relation to those functions will be a matter for the Executive in the Assembly to decide.

Crispin Blunt: We have had an ongoing discussion about which functions will be transferred. The
 Minister has made it clear that when the Government choose to transfer such functions they will do so by order, and I want to ensure that I have understood that. He seems to be saying that the functions that the Bill states will be carried out by the Secretary of State could be transferred to a Minister of the devolved institutions, who would presumably take responsibility for home affairs or justice in the Assembly. Could such functions be devolved under the order to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly, who would then devolve the function to whomever they nominate? I am slightly confused by what gets transferred when, and I would be grateful for the Minister's assistance.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking for clarification, and I shall try to help him and the Committee to understand what will happen.
 A transfer order will be made under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The two sides to that transfer are the transferor and the person—in this case the Executive in the Assembly—to whom the functions are transferred. There must therefore be a receipt of that transfer, and it is for the Executive in the Assembly to decide how it will be received. 
 Other provisions in the review recommend the creation of a Ministry of Justice. The Executive may, for example, take the view that the determination of the programme for the Law Commission would sit properly with the responsibilities and accountabilities of a Minister for Justice as opposed to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Consistent with the constitutional position in relation to devolution, the structure and responsibilities of the Executive are a matter for them, subject to the structures set out in the 1998 Act. 
 I shall speculate about how that might be done. The functions could be transferred in the first instance to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and then be further transferred, or they could be transferred direct if that were agreed. Such a decision would be made at the time, but the views of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Executive and the Assembly would have to be taken into account. 
 The hon. Member for Reigate asked whether the Law Commission fits into any of the relevant descriptions of reserved areas within schedule 3. Thanks to his intervention, I have looked at that again. There is a debate about whether it fits, and we may need to table an amendment at a later stage that clearly puts it into schedule 3 in order for it to be considered a reserved area to be devolved. I am grateful to him for pointing that out, as it goes to show the benefit of having debates in Committee.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the Minister for his guidance. It is important that he put on record that there are two sides to devolution: a decision by the Westminster Government that they want, desire and intend to devolve; and the requirement for a decision of the political process in Northern Ireland to accept those devolved powers. The Good Friday arrangements do
 not involve only the Government and parties in the north of Ireland, because there are more signatories than that. We should be reminded of that as often as possible. Will the Minister inform us where the term Republic of Ireland came from and how it got on to a Bill promoted by one of two sovereign Governments involved in the Good Friday agreement?
 I am in favour of devolution for many reasons, including the fact that the process towards which I spent most of my life working is almost complete. The maturity of devolution will be measured by its ability to deal with issues such as justice. Not everybody shares my view, or has the same confidence. I cannot speak for the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly—or speaking jointly. There will be much soul searching in all communities in the north of Ireland before they agree to accept the devolved powers. That is why we must get the legislation right. Matters that are debating points in this House, and may look small in the overall pattern, might not be so perceived when the issue is devolved.

Crispin Blunt: I want to be clear about what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is saying. I assume that he is referring to the duty placed on the commission to consult the Law Reform Commission of the Republic of Ireland, and that he feels that it will be difficult for the Assembly to accept that. I would be grateful for his guidance, because I do not want to be under a misapprehension.

Seamus Mallon: That is a misunderstanding of my point. Part of the agreement between the two sovereign Governments was the terminology each would use in relation to the other. No one would intend to deviate from that, but I remind the Minister that the Good Friday agreement contains more than the agreement of the parties. I leave it at that, and I have no doubt that hon. Members can reflect on those words.
 The task will not be easy. Even the way in which the process is devolved will not be easy. It could be devolved to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, or to a new Minister known as the Minister of Justice. The Assembly might not agree to extend the number of Ministers. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 might have to be changed to provide for a new Minister—the position could not be given to a junior Minister—whose appointment would be in the hands of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. 
 Many questions will have to be asked. I tabled the amendment so that we could ask those questions and discover the answers. I shall not press the amendment to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 245, in page 30, line 4, leave out second 'and'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 243, in, page 30, line 5, at end insert—
'(cc) The Human Rights Commission for Northern Ireland, and 
 (cd) The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.'.
 No. 244, in page 30, line 9, leave out from beginning and insert— 
'(c) any other such law reform body in any jurisdiction that appears to the Commission appropriate with respect to a particular area of law.'.

Lady Hermon: Amendment No. 245 is a drafting amendment made necessary by amendment No. 243.
 Clause 51(4) requires the commission to consult only the Law Commission, the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Reform Commission of the Republic of Ireland. I want emphasis to be given to human rights and equality, as in the Belfast agreement, the Good Friday agreement and the review. Greater recognition should be given in the Bill to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. The purpose of amendment No. 243 is to add them to the list of bodies to be consulted by the new commission. That would recognise the emphasis in the agreement on human rights and equality, to which the review of the criminal justice system also referred. 
 Amendment No. 244 would broaden the range of law reform bodies with which the commission must consult, so that the commission could consult any other law reform body in any jurisdiction, including the Law Reform Commission of the Republic of Ireland and others, if that would be helpful.

Des Browne: In respect of amendment No. 243, we recognise the important role of the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission and the fact that they have a legitimate interest in law reform. I am happy to put that on the record. They were not considered for inclusion and then excluded. However, it is not appropriate to impose an obligation on the commission to consult them, although we expect it to consult other bodies in Northern Ireland from time to time, depending on the issues being reviewed and considered.
 It is proper that the commission's programme of work should be approved in consultation with Ministers who have responsibility for law reform. Both the commission and Ministers would be interested to hear the view of organisations with an interest in law reform, but we do not want to be prescriptive in the Bill 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Des Browne: I shall turn to amendment No. 244. I said to the hon. Member for North Down that, in performing its duties, it is right that the new Law Commission consults the three law reform commissions in the United Kingdom and Ireland. That reflects the recommendations in paragraph 14.53 of the review, which states:
We believe the functions of the Law Commission for Northern Ireland should include . . . keeping abreast of developments in other jurisdictions, including in particular England and Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.
 That is what the clause is designed to achieve. 
 Clause 51(2)(f) states that the commission must 
obtain such information as to the legal systems of other countries as appears . . . likely to facilitate the performance of its . . . duties.
 Together, those two provisions, both of which reflect specific recommendations of the review, would cover what the hon. Lady seeks to achieve through her amendment. The commission may then consult other law reform commissions or bodies as it chooses, and as is necessary. The amendment is unnecessary.

Lady Hermon: I have had 15 minutes to reflect on the fact that the Minister replied in part to my arguments for the inclusion of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
 Our short break also enabled me to turn again to the helpful interview that the Minister gave to The Irish News on Monday 21 January 2002. I hope that I will not be shot down in flames for quoting him out of context, and I shall try to avoid doing so. The interview was entitled, ''Now to catch up on the criminal justice system'', and in it he said: 
We are trying to create a modern democracy in Northern Ireland which has at its heart respect for human rights and equality.
 Such language is repeated at the beginning of the implementation plan of the criminal justice review, in the chapter on human rights and guiding principles. I welcome the fact that it states: 
The Government agrees that human rights are central to the criminal justice system.
 I feel enormously committed to that idea. 
 Those who voted for the Belfast agreement—or the Good Friday agreement if people prefer to call it that—voted for human rights and equality, and I want to see that reflected in the Bill. It will not detract from the work of the Law Commission to require that it consult with the most obvious of all bodies in Northern Ireland: the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission. Therefore, I regret to say that I am not persuaded by the Minister's arguments. The break of 15 minutes has reinforced in my mind that I have to press the amendment to a vote. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 - Reports etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt: I seek clarification from the Minister again about what happens on transfer. I note that the clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to lay the reports before both Houses of Parliament and on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to lay them before the Legislative Assembly. Will the Minister explain what happens when the functions are transferred? Is the reference to the Secretary of State simply lost from the Bill, or will it be covered in the transfer order? Will that reference still be appropriate once functions have been transferred?
 I do not know whether there is a parallel with the devolved Administration in Scotland. Will there still be a requirement to lay reports of the Northern Ireland Law Commission before this Parliament even after the administration of justice has been devolved? I seek clarification on that point.

Des Browne: The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Reigate is that it will depend on what the report relates to and where the legislative competence lies. In the pre-devolution period, when only part of the legislative competence and Executive responsibility lies with the devolved authorities, it is clear that there would be a dual structure. To cite the case of Scotland, it would be pointless for reports of the Law Commission that related to the legislative competence and the Executive responsibility of the First Minister and the Executive and of the Scottish Parliament to be laid before this Parliament. I do not believe that they are, although I did not check that before coming into the Committee. I shall have that checked, and if I am wrong I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
 I believe, therefore, that after the devolution of criminal justice functions, the reference to the Secretary of State will be deleted to the extent that those functions are devolved. I can think of some circumstances where reserved matters related to criminal justice may concern the Law Commission, although they would have a very narrow focus. It may be appropriate in terms of the devolution order to reserve those matters so that any report on them must be laid before this Parliament, but I do not think that when responsibility for criminal justice is devolved, the references to the Secretary of State would be entirely lost. 
 As I try to explain this to the hon. Member for Reigate, I must concede that I am not 100 per cent. confident that the answer that I am giving him is correct. Because of the specific nature of the question, I shall undertake to write to him. This is a serious and important point. I shall need to satisfy myself, because part of my mind suggests to me that the Law Commission may well have occasion to report on an area that is not part of the reserved field. I may be wrong about that. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman an unequivocal assurance that, under the 
 clause, it will be appropriate only after devolution for any reports in the reserved field to be laid before the Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland. 
 However, I have to satisfy myself that there is no possibility of the Law Commission reporting on an area that is outside the reserved field. Insofar as I am able to satisfy myself, that is the complete answer. I hope that I have not confused the Committee, because I am in danger of confusing myself.

Crispin Blunt: The effect of the clause depends on the meaning of the phrase,
lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each document.
 I assume that it means that there is a formal duty to make available the document to the House, and that each House will have an opportunity to consider it. It may be appropriate for the reports of the Law Commission, regardless of their subject, to be made available to these Houses. Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom and its law remains a matter of concern to the United Kingdom, whether it is devolved or not. Those who drafted the clause may have regarded this as an area in which the Houses should have a sustained interest. 
 The Minister has confused me as to where functions will go and what will remain functions for the Secretary of State after devolution. That is a matter for concern, because the post of Secretary of State will continue to exist after the devolution of justice and of the whole process of complaint, just as there continues to be a Secretary of State for Scotland—although how busy that post is has become a matter of controversy. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether the clause would remain intact after devolution.

Des Browne: I apologise to the Committee, as I should have come to the Committee prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, and I am not able to respond with the clarity that I should like.
 I understand the hon. Gentleman's point; he has pursued a consistent theme in that regard throughout our proceedings, and his point deserves a clearer answer than I have been able to give. I undertake to write to Committee members to clarify the position. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 - Aims of youth justice system

Lembit Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 278, in page 30, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'( ) The principal aim of the youth justice system in Northern Ireland is to prevent offending by children and to promote the child's reintegration and the child assuming a constructive role in society. 
 ( ) Every child in contact with the law shall be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, reinforcing the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others.'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 223, in page 30, line 32, after 'children', insert—
'having taken into account the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration, as identified in the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child; the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the United Nations Guidelines for the prevention of Juvenile delinquency; the United Nations Standard minimum for the Administration of Youth Justice and the United Nations Guidelines for the protection of juveniles deprived of their liberty.'.
 No. 264, in page 30, line 32, after 'children', insert— 
'and young persons'.
 No. 284, in page 30, line 41, at end insert— 
'(3A) All persons with responsibility for the youth justice system shall have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.'.
 No. 277, in page 30, line 37, leave out 'welfare' and insert— 
'best interests'.

Lembit Öpik: The amendments in the group stand in my name and those of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton). Of that gang of three, I stand alone for unavoidable reasons, as my hon. Friend has a commitment that she could not get out of and the hon. Gentleman was obliged to return to Northern Ireland. It is a shame and unsatisfactory that he could not stay until this part of the debate, because I know that he wanted to be here. Nevertheless, following consultation with him, we decided that I could make the points on behalf of all three of us.
 Subsection (1) states: 
The principal aim of the youth justice system is to protect the public by preventing offending by children.
 In the judgment of those who tabled the amendments, the principal aim of the youth justice system in Northern Ireland is to prevent offending by children and to promote the child's reintegration and assuming a constructive role in society. 
 Those two approaches to law and order have different principles: one is a form of prevention, the other a form of empowerment. At the heart of this and the subsequent amendments that we have tabled is a debate about how we should approach the reintegration of children and guarantee that youth justice ensures that individuals who are at risk of offending or who have offended are treated fairly. 
 At the heart of our concerns lie the criticisms made by organisations such as the Children's Law Centre and Include Youth, which are gravely concerned that the balance in this part of the Bill is not right. In addition, a heavy body of evidence from international covenants and agreements suggests that we must think again about how this part of the Bill is phrased. 
 I shall use amendment No. 223 to discuss the underlying principles, so that we do not need to keep returning to them and can debate the specific intentions behind later amendments.

Andrew Turner: This is a wonderful catch-all, motherhood and apple pie sort of amendment. What does the hon. Gentleman think should happen when the best interests of the child conflict with the best interests of the community?

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman might like to give an example, because I cannot immediately think of one. He is perhaps suggesting that the empowerment of an individual or his reintegration
 into society is not in the best interests of society or, alternatively, that allowing an individual to break the law is in his best interests. That would probably lead to a debate about definitions, although I am not inviting the Committee to go further than it must into such a debate. In the long term, however, it will almost always be in the interests of the child and of society to take account of the body of covenants laid out in amendment No. 223.
 If the hon. Member for Isle of Wight takes a different view, I shall be interested to hear it, because my mind is open. Speaking for myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, however, it is clear that the amendment is synergistic and seeks to combine the interests of the individual and those of society. That is pretty much the starting point for many of the documents mentioned in the amendment, many of which are spawned by the United Nations. 
 I want to quote from those documents, to which the United Kingdom must have serious regard. The preamble to the UN convention on the rights of the child states: 
childhood is entitled to special care and assistance . . . Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.
 I shall not read the entire convention, but statements all the way through draw on the assumption that handling the individual in an empowering fashion will also tackle the problems created by youth offending. Article 3.1 states: 
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

Andrew Turner: First, I notice that the hon. Gentleman quoted the words ''a primary consideration'', whereas the amendment states ''the paramount consideration''. There is a vast gulf between those two phrases.
 I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman about his earlier quotation about a child growing up in a family. From memory, that was one of the considerations that he said should be borne in mind. We all support the idea of a child growing up within the family, but the problem with such conventions is their interpretation. Does it mean that it is impossible to imprison a child? I have heard nothing yet—

Peter Pike: Order. I urge brevity for all interventions. I do not like cutting in on hon. Members when they are speaking.

Lembit Öpik: I thank the Committee in advance for its forbearance; my contribution was slightly longer than I would normally be entitled to make. I want to establish the principles, because they are of great importance to organisations that seek to support, protect and nurture children, including those who, in a legal sense, end up going off the rails.
 I shall correct the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. He said that I had suggested that the paramount aim was to do all those nice things for children. Amendment No. 278 states: 
The principal aim of the youth justice system in Northern Ireland is to prevent offending by children and to promote the child's reintegration and the child assuming a constructive role in society.
 It makes an extremely clear statement. Amendment No. 223 refers to 
the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
 The hon. Gentleman was right about that, but if he had waited a moment I would have gone on to say that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle believe that amendment No. 278 is better constructed than ours. 
 I do not want to quibble about the wording of amendment No. 223. I am using it as a vehicle to provide the Committee with the opportunity to put on record the core elements of the conventions that we believe are currently not sufficiently represented in the Bill.

Mark Francois: You asked for brief interventions, Mr. Pike, and I shall attempt to comply.
 The hon. Gentleman is putting forward liberal justice with a small and a large ''L''. He concedes that amendment No. 223 may not be as well drafted as amendment No. 278. Will he withdraw his amendment, so that we can concentrate on amendment No. 278.

Peter Pike: Order. The second amendment has not been moved. It is grouped with another amendment for debate, but only the first has been moved.

Lembit Öpik: Such is the reverence and awe with which some hon. Members regard the United Nations convention on the rights of the child that I am not surprised that they want to gag me. I know the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) well, and have great affection for him. I hope that he does not really want to gag me, but I assure him that I do not intend to press amendment No. 223 to a Division.
 I am using the amendment as a vehicle to put on record some important considerations that come directly from that convention and others. It will provide a basis for debates on subsequent strings of amendments, many of which were tabled by my hon. Friend and me. I remind the Committee that I am doing this to avoid duplication, so that I do not have to keep mentioning the conventions later. I want to move the Committee on as best I can. I shall need to mention a few other elements from the conventions. I hope at least to explain my motives. I see the hon. Member for Rayleigh nodding; that is a relief. 
 Article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child provides: 
States parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
 It goes on to say: 
For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or though a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
 Article 14 states: 
States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
 I shall come back to that later. I assume that hon. Members have access to the document and can read it at leisure. I shall provide free copies for those who want them. It continually assumes that treating the child with respect and dignity and empowering and reintegrating the individual is the best way to prevent problems from arising in the future. 
 We should give more regard to the UN convention on the rights of the child than is suggested in the crucial first statement in clause 53. The other evidence that I have with me is legion. The UN rules for the protection of juveniles deprived of their liberty state that the first fundamental perspective is—

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The hon. Gentleman is quoting in extenso from documents that are not in front of the Committee. If we are to judge what is being said, it would be helpful for us to have access to those documents.

Peter Pike: The position is clear. Amendment No. 223 relates to those documents, and Mr. Öpik is in order to refer to them, so long as he keeps his quotes within reasonable limits. I would not expect him to read every aspect of them, but he is in order, and he has assured the Committee that he intends to be relatively brief.

Lembit Öpik: I assure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that I am not making it up—it is all here in black and white—and I assure you, Mr. Pike, that I am précising dramatically.

Peter Pike: I accept that.

Lembit Öpik: If Committee members feel that I am being a zealot over these documents, they should be tremendously grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has had to leave. She will be checking up on me when the Official Report is printed. In the spirit of the debate, I shall give a few more examples as concisely as possible.
 The first fundamental perspective that comes from the UN rules for the protection of juveniles deprived of their liberty states: 
The juvenile justice system should uphold the rights and safety and promote the physical and mental well-being of juveniles. Imprisonment should be used as a last resort.
 Under ''8'', the document says that 
care of detained juveniles and preparation for their return to society is a social service of great importance.

Des Browne: I am reluctant to intervene on the hon. Gentleman because I know that he is trying to cover a wide range of issues as concisely as possible. However, if he wants to give examples from the principles set out in international conventions of cases in which the law of Northern Ireland does not respect those conventions, it is incumbent on him to do more than to read them out. He must make it clear where the law is deficient. He has given important examples of the principles that are designed to protect children, to which the Government have signed up. Previous Governments signed up to them too. They are
 religiously followed in the legislation that applies in Northern Ireland.

Lembit Öpik: In order to achieve the clarity that the Minister, reasonably, calls for, I might—I did not want to do this—have to cite specific elements of the documents as we reach the amendments to which they relate, in order to illustrate the deficiencies in the Bill. I shall alter my strategy dramatically and talk just about the amendments that we are considering. I have covered the parts of the documents that will allow me to do that. The Minister looks a little edgy, perhaps fearing that I shall try to pull apart this entire section of the Bill. No one questions the Government's desire to achieve the result that I advocate. I return to the matter of balance, and shall move swiftly to discuss the specific import of amendment No. 278.
 The difference between the amendment and the provision in the clause relates to the phrase 
the child's reintegration and the child assuming a constructive role in society.
 Hon. Members can read the amendments for themselves, but if the Bill is to do justice to the principles that I have already read out and to the Minister's intent in this area, it needs to do more than baldly suggest that the prime objective is to protect the public. 
 When the focus is on crime prevention, we often store up problems for the future by curing the symptoms rather than the cause. Clause 53 sets out the principles of part 4, and we want the statement of principle to include the codes that I have described. For that reason, it is necessary to consider amendment No. 278 in the context of amendment No. 284, which states: 
All persons with responsibility for the youth justice system shall have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
 That is the document from which I have quoted extensively. 
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight made a perfectly reasonable point about amendment No. 223. It is my judgment that amendments Nos. 278 and 284 would provide a more elegant and robust solution to the challenge that we set ourselves in amendment No. 223. In addition, amendment No. 277 would change the word ''welfare'' to the words ''best interests'', which is more faithful to the spirit of the principles that I have proposed. 
 Considering the package of amendments as a whole, we are asking the Government to rebalance the intention of the principles in clause 53, which relate to the whole of part 4, so that they include rehabilitation rather than just prevention. I have examined this part of the Bill in great detail, so perhaps I can predict the Minister's response. He may feel that my concerns are adequately covered in other clauses. I am not intending to be confrontational; I am just concerned about an omission that might, in time, have a salient effect on the emphasis of the justice system towards young people in Northern Ireland. 
 The Government have shown genuine concern for human rights. They have been proactive in the international forum, and have tried to embody many 
 worthy conventions in British law. It seems a shame not to apply that same rigour to this part of the Bill when it would be relatively easy to do so. I intend to press amendment No. 278 to a vote if the Minister's reply does not fulfil my strategic intent and that of my hon. Friends. But if he can give an assurance that he will revisit the issue, with a view to making an express commitment to incorporate the principles of the UN convention on the rights of the child, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Crispin Blunt: I listened with care to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and I disagree with him, not on the intention behind his proposals regarding children but because this part of the Bill on youth justice must have regard to the whole community, the Government's aims to improve justice meted out to children and the need for children to face up to their responsibilities.
 The Government's overall objectives are welcomed, and the Opposition support them. We have concerns on some matters of detail: the strength of reparation orders, the strength of the community restorative orders and the way in which the conferences are to take place. However, the legislation is wholly consistent with all the conventions referred to by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. 
 This debate does not take place in isolation. We are all aware of the percentage of crime that is committed by children. The legislation will include 17-year-olds in the category of youth justice. A significant percentage of criminal behaviour is carried out by those under 18. Ultimately, we are debating the protection of the public. In drafting subsection (1), the Government and the review group have been criticised by human rights bodies, such as the Children's Law Centre. That body wants to see an amendment to the clause. It states: 
The principal aim of the Youth Justice System is to prevent offending by children, having taken into account the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
 I part company with the organisation on that point. The paramount consideration is legitimately the protection of the public. 
 The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is asking us to incorporate his judgment. When he referred to imprisoning children or putting them into custody, he implied that that would lead to further problems down the line, because there would be a lack of public protection when children were released from schools of crime to cause more trouble. It is a matter of judgment whether custody will be the right solution. The first consideration must be protecting the public. In my county of Surrey, the chief constable arrested five repeat burglars in Guildford. They would be considered youth offenders under this Bill because they were all younger than 18. There was a 25 per cent. drop in the crime rate in Guildford by putting those individuals into custody.

Mark Francois: We should also consider that a large proportion of crime committed by children is committed against other children. I cite the example of mobile phone theft.

Crispin Blunt: That is true and I imagine a vast amount of it is unseen by the system and the statisticians. The welcome innovations that we will debate in part 4 of the Bill have to be seen in context. The Government have been correct in phrasing the overall objective. They have the Opposition's support because they achieve in detail the objectives to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, the Government, the official Opposition and all others of right mind are committed.

Edward Garnier: I am somewhat concerned by the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. It would not advance the youth justice system in Northern Ireland one jot. Equally, I am not hugely convinced that subsections (1), (2) and (3) help.
 I am interested that the Government are prepared to place in the Bill a clause headed: 
Aims of youth justice system.
 When the Access to Justice Act 1999 was in Committee, there was a considerable dispute between the Government and me. The then Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), who is now Secretary of State for Defence, had carriage of the Access to Justice Bill. Lord Ackner and others sought to put an aims clause into that Bill and the right hon. Member for Ashfield argued with great vehemence that the inclusion of an aims clause would be dematerialist and, at best, unhelpful. I do not know why we should have an aims of youth justice system clause in this Bill. To my mind it is unhelpful. 
 The use of the expression: 
The principal aim of the youth justice system
 suggests that there are other aims that are of lesser value. When one compares subsection (1) with subsection (3), the value of subsection (1) is wholly undermined. If the principal aim of the youth justice system is to protect the public by, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, preventing offending by children, one bangs them up. The only way in which to prevent the public from being interfered with by offending children is to keep them off the streets. 
 That is, of course, not what the Government mean. They mean that it would be nice for the public to know that they are concerned that youth crime is a problem, but having set out that lofty aim they will not implement the meaning of subsection (1). Subsection (3) states that those in charge of the youth justice system must exercise their functions 
with a view (in particular) to furthering their personal, social and educational development.
 It is possible for children to be placed in custody, and while they are in custody to have their personal, social and educational development looked after. 
 That is understandable in theory, but I have a suspicion that subsections (1), (2) and (3) are no more than an early-day motion. They are of little legislative value, and they are of little value to those who sit in judgment or who work in the youth justice system in Northern Ireland. I have no idea whether other members of the Committee are magistrates, and I 
 may be the only member who, as a judge, has sent someone to prison. I assure the Committee that every magistrate in a youth court and every judge who has to deal with people under the age of 18 will have in mind, if not the text of the various conventions and so on to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire referred, the aspirations of subsections (1), (2) and (3). However, they would not want to be hobbled and would not be assisted by the need to reach a conclusion that fits the exact form of the clause by having the clause placed in front of them between the child in question and the decision that they must eventually take in the interests of justice. 
 The only subsections in clause 53 of any value to a court and those who come before the youth justice system are subsections (4), (5) and (6), which define what we shall be dealing with in later clauses in part 4. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) are interesting to read and inoffensive in the terms in which they are expressed, but are of no utility whatever to the practical work of dealing with young offenders in courts. They will not be removed because I believe that it would be better if they were, but I ask Minister to explain why the Government said one thing in 1999 and are saying something else in 2002, and why the first three subsections should be in the Bill.

Des Browne: It might help the hon. and learned Member for Harborough if he had a copy of the review document before him. If he does not have one, I can provide one. Paragraph 10.63 refers to the purpose and reasoning behind the recommendation that
in drawing up legislation . . . the Government should develop, agree and incorporate a clear statement of the aims of the juvenile justice system in Northern Ireland.
 That shows that there may be reasons for expressing in statute aims other than for the strict purpose of allowing judges to interpret them. The purpose is clear and I am sure that, in preparing for the Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman read them because he would have known that we were likely to discuss the matter. Otherwise, perhaps he will read them so that we can discuss them later. 
Mr. Garnier rose—

Des Browne: I am not inclined to take an intervention now because I have other comments to make that are important to our debate.
 I have no criticism of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for speaking to amendments in other hon. Members' names and I understand why he wants to open up this area of debate. I have no criticism of anyone who lobbies the Government in the interests of children and to redirect our attention to international conventions and principles accepted by successive UK Governments, who accepted that international standards that relate to the protection and interests of children were appropriate. We can, and do, look to other countries and find that they do not protect children as we do, so it is incumbent on us to observe the principles in the conventions, and set by example that which should apply the world over. 
 I read with interest the contributions to the consultation processes, including those for the 
 review. They came from a number of well-informed and important groups. However, that does not mean that, as a Minister standing at the prow of the history of UK Governments' attempts to respect conventions, I should not add something on record: although we must constantly be drawn back to principles, reconsider legislation and improve it if we can, we should not say that there should be no concession or that the principles, which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire sets out in short and some consultation contributions set out at length, are not being respected. 
 UK Governments have been punctilious in ensuring that conventions are respected, so I say to the hon. Gentleman that if he chooses parts or articles of conventions that he believes are not being properly respected, it is incumbent on him to point them out so that they can be addressed. It is better that that happens as we proceed through the Bill. He will find no absence of willingness on my part to address them. No hon. Member would want to be party to the enactment of legislation that contravenes our international obligations. 
 In moving amendment No. 278, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire provides an alternative form of words for subsection (1). I cannot, and do not, disagree with the sentiments expressed in what I consider to be a thoughtful amendment. I am glad that it has been moved. None the less, although the words are different, his sentiments are already reflected in the Bill. 
 The hon. Gentleman's genuine concerns about reintegration and a constructive role in society for the child can best be addressed through preventing offending and re-offending. A child's sense of dignity and self-worth can be developed by having regard for his or her welfare and by furthering his or her personal, social and educational development. Building a sense of respect for the rights and freedoms of others can be achieved by encouraging children to recognise the effects of crime on themselves and others. I contend that the hon. Gentleman and I are saying the same thing, but I prefer the way in which it is worded in the Bill. 
 I understand the thinking behind amendment No. 233. However, I am worried that it confuses the Bill's drafting considerably, and risks duplication in some areas and conflict in others. By advocating the prevention of offending as the means of protecting the public, and by directing persons and bodies to have regard for the welfare of the child—particularly by furthering the personal, social and educational development of children who come into contact with the youth justice system—the statement of aims is entirely consistent and compatible with all the international conventions in the amendment. 
 The spirit and letter of the international instruments are further satisfied by legislative provision, which already restricts the use of custody for children and which, in this Bill, increases the community sentencing option for courts, traduces restorative interventions and makes available pre-court diversionary arrangements. Those legislative provisions are underpinned by policies that aim to maintain young 
 people in their communities by providing support to them and to their families before offending patterns are confirmed. The aims therefore set the scene for, and must be viewed in the context of, all that we evidently intend to do in legislative and policy terms to protect the public, meet victims' needs and, crucially, support children away from crime. 
 The Government are not opposed to incorporating international treaties and instruments into British law—where appropriate. Our incorporation of the European convention on human rights through the Human Rights Act 1998 is one of our most significant achievements and one of which I am most intensely proud. There is, however, a difference between incorporating legal conventions, such as the European convention, and putting in place some of the guidelines in the amendment. 
 If the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire identifies areas covered by the guidelines that are not adequately dealt with in the Northern Ireland statute book, we shall be happy to consider his points. Although I hope that he will try to do that as we go through this part of the Bill, I am not persuaded that he will be able to, given the examples that he has cited so far. He quoted article 12 of the UN convention, which states that the child's views should be given due weight, but that already happens. A child is entitled to legal representation as a defendant, and we are taking matters further through youth conferencing. I do not, therefore, understand where the deficiency is when it comes to giving the child an opportunity to be heard. Indeed, the Bill contains legal aid provisions on youth conferencing, which will ensure that the child's voice is heard loudly. 
 I do not know my way around the convention as well as the hon. Gentleman does, but he quoted an article that requires custody to be used as a last resort in the case of children. That is, however, reflected in existing law, under which detention is used only where the offence justifies it. Existing law is restated in the present provisions; I am thinking particularly of new article 44A(4) in clause 56. I look forward to further examples, but I hope that we do not need to return to the two that I have mentioned, because there is clearly no merit in either of them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees—indeed, I do not think that he did this—that it is unhelpful simply to cite such instruments as a sort of mantra. Nor do I think that those who encourage such amendments would want to do that. 
 The amendment would also introduce confusion into the heart of the system's aims. Paramount consideration would be given to the child's welfare, but the system's principal aim would still be to protect the public by preventing offending by children. I think that that was the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was trying to make in an intervention on the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. I should make it clear that, in the Government's view, any tension will generally be more apparent than real. Given the consequences of criminal behaviour—some of which hon. Members have alluded to—the interests of young offenders, and of children in particular, will be served by preventing offending. The clause also makes it clear 
 that those who exercise functions in relation to youth justice should seek to promote the welfare of children and to encourage them to recognise the effects of crime and to take responsibility for their actions. 
 The clause replicates the language of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, but differs from the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which, I accept, gave paramountcy to the child's welfare. There is, however, a clear reason for that distinction. It is reasonable for agencies that deal with the child's welfare in the context of family law and care law to take a slightly different approach from that taken in the criminal justice system. When legislating in compliance with principles, the Government must apply them to the circumstances that prevail, not slavishly repeat them. We must distinguish between care law and criminal law. After all, we are dealing with cases in which a child's behaviour results in his or her rights clashing with those of other citizens. As always, a balance must be struck, and I believe that the Bill strikes the right one. 
 Amendment No. 284 seeks to include in the Bill specific reference to the UN convention on the rights 
 of the child. The Government fully accept the principles espoused in the convention, but the issue is how best to implement them and how best to have regard to the child's welfare. Those aims are best achieved through the approach that we have adopted, and we have gone to considerable lengths to give practical effect to them in the Bill. We should reflect the convention in the provisions that we make for children; we should not slavishly repeat the principles. I firmly believe that we have done that. 
 Amendment No. 277 seeks to replace the term ''welfare'' of the child with ''best interests'' of the child. I do not think that there is any material difference between the terms. I am satisfied that if we have regard to the welfare of the child a concept that is well understood and defined—we will, to all intents and purposes, have regard to the child's best interests. I therefore see little point in the amendment and encourage the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Stringer.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Six o'clock till Tuesday 12 February at half-past Ten o'clock.